Khodorkovsky is a perpetrator of the convention. The Oligarchs 'are fidgeting in their chairs, but they don’t speed themselves to save Khodorkovsky. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on August 13, 2002, and 2003.
On this very day, on August 13, 2002, the Swiss newspaper “Le Temp” published a typical for that time article entitled ‘Eight big shareholder companies dictate the Kremlin their own reform policy”. Laurent Nicole, the author of this piece, has founded his piece on the lecture notes of Peter Boone and Denis Rodionov, analysts of the firm “Brunswick USB Warburg”.
‘Having analyzed the activities of 64 of the biggest Russian companies no longer under control from the part of the state, we found out that 85% of their assets were in the hand of only eight groups of shareholders. According to the authors of the report, the following companies are members of this group: “Menatep”, “Interros”, Millhouse/Russian Aluminium, “System”, LUKoil”, ‘Alfa”, “Surgutneftegaz” and “Avtovaz” which “acquired their shares under rather murky circumstances breaking the Russian laws and in contradiction to the programs of privatization. Representative of the political and financial elite very often voiced the criticism of their activity".
But the experts pointed out that the shady methods of the activity of the businessmen gradually recede into the past, and the business itself took a fancy to transparency, laws, and “favorable investment climate”.
The consensus formula between authorities and oligarchs
“The working method which consisted of making profit from the lack of control, complicity of the civil servants and which was used for the creation of financial and industrial imperia will soon disappear: "the big eight" has taken a decision to change the methods of the management of its enterprises thanks to "introduction of transparent accounts, creation of mid-range strategies and boosting productivity”. According to Peter Boone and Denis Rodionov, "these powerful groups have switched from anarchy and lack of transparency to the defense of the rule of law and property rights. The decisions on these changes were taken because of one reason – these groups want officially use the assets at their disposal and have a right to reconstruct their enterprises”, pointed out the newspaper noting that the fortune of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Oil Company Yukos, amounted to 3.7 billion US dollars whereas that of Roman Abramovich amounted at that time to only 3 billion US dollars.
The authors didn’t forget to mention the well-known formula of consensus between the authorities and the oligarchs which ran like this: the business with its shady projects doesn’t tamper with politics, but deals with its own business matters.
And in 2002 it seemed that everybody, sort of, understood everything, including such themes as taxes and explicit hints to return back money which had been funneled to offshore companies and foreign banks. But in Yukos, it was decided that "America was with them" and it meant that it was possible to play a double game. This is, at least, corroborated by the documents on how Khodorkovsky had been preparing “his candidates” for deputies during the elections of the year 2003, with whom it had been “invisibly” dealt as early as in the fall of 2002 with the final purpose – with the help of corruption to change the constitutional order in Russia, because the moneybag Khodorkovsky “saw the future that way”. As the result, on account of one perpetrator of the convention, in a year already the whole guild of the “equidistant oligarchs” went bonkers.
In 2002, "Open Russia" ordered the Foundation for the development of a parliamentary system to work out changes and amendments to the Federal constitutional law “On Government of the Russian Federation”.
The key phrase: “The President presents to the State Duma a nominee to the post of the head of Government from the list of the persons proposed by a fraction or by a coalition of fractions (deputy groups) disposing of the majority of voices…” See also MBKh-files: Corruption coup. Secret files of the ‘Open Russia”. Mikhail Khodorkovsky prepared the seizure of power in 2004. Having put on the financial needle of Yukos deputies and several civil servants, Mikhail Khodorkovsky indented in his own way to dispose of Russia”.
“Fits of unpleasant premonitions”
On this day, on August 13, 2003, the newspaper “The Financial Times” in its very headline caught the mood that reigned at that time in the Russian business community. “The Yukos affair makes the Russian oligarchs fidget in their chairs".
‘Some Russian businessmen are still preparing themselves for holidays, but others leave only for a short period of time being nervous because of the investigation against Yukos which started in July. This affair induced in the business community fits of unpleasant premonitions…” points out the reporter Andrew Jack. He has already shared this observation that struck him – the oligarchs do not hustle to help Khodorkovsky.
“The most striking thing in the latest scandal is a weak reaction from the part of other big companies. When in 2002 the media tycoon Vladimir Gusinsky was arrested, and a year later the managers of the petrochemical group "Sibur" were placed under detention, leading companies at once made public their statements condemning these actions. Khodorkovsky didn't receive such support", stressed the astonished author of the story.
"To a degree, it can be explained by the spirit of competitiveness and even the envy of Yukos success which in the last three years has raised its status and market capitalization. But many businessmen think that Khodorkovsky too explicitly demonstrates his political ambitions”, noted the reporter of “The Financial Times” and reminded his readers that “during our recent interview in the Moscow office of Yukos Khodorkovsky was resentful and nervous, but seemed ready to resist, at that”.
(See also: Financial Times: 'Yukos secretly provides support for the Communist Party)
However, one of the interlocutors of the newspaper was very specific in his assessment of the situation: “He broke the agreement with the president" bearing in mind the tacit accord of the year 2000 under which the Kremlin does not reconsider the results of the privatization of the 1990s, and the businessmen remain outside politics”.
Eventually, all members of the guild promptly rushed to clean their back taxes, to raise the quality of financial and other records, and some, in fact, even started to think about transferring their assets to the Russian jurisdiction. Indeed, to become “transparent”, it’s not enough to report about that in American newspapers and to draw a nice graph of the "dynamic development". Something else must be done, and in the real-life, at that. Al least, to pay taxes”, points out the website Prigovor.ru
On this very day, 19 years ago, on August 13, 2002, the Swiss newspaper “Le Temp” published a typical for that time article entitled ‘Eight big shareholder companies dictate the Kremlin their own reform policy”. Laurent Nicole, the author of this piece, has founded his piece on the lecture notes of Peter Boone and Denis Rodionov, analysts of the firm “Brunswick USB Warburg”.
‘Having analyzed the activities of 64 of the biggest Russian companies no longer under control from the part of the state, we found out that 85% of their assets were in the hand of only eight groups of shareholders. According to the authors of the report, the following companies are members of this group: “Menatep”, “Interros”, Millhouse/Russian Aluminium, “System”, LUKoil”, ‘Alfa”, “Surgutneftegaz” and “Avtovaz” which “acquired their shares under rather murky circumstances breaking the Russian laws and in contradiction to the programs of privatization. Representative of the political and financial elite very often voiced the criticism of their activity".
But the experts pointed out that the shady methods of the activity of the businessmen gradually recede into the past, and the business itself took a fancy to transparency, laws, and “favorable investment climate”.
The consensus formula between authorities and oligarchs
“The working method which consisted of making profit from the lack of control, complicity of the civil servants and which was used for the creation of financial and industrial imperia will soon disappear: "the big eight" has taken a decision to change the methods of the management of its enterprises thanks to "introduction of transparent accounts, creation of mid-range strategies and boosting productivity”. According to Peter Boone and Denis Rodionov, "these powerful groups have switched from anarchy and lack of transparency to the defense of the rule of law and property rights. The decisions on these changes were taken because of one reason – these groups want officially use the assets at their disposal and have a right to reconstruct their enterprises”, pointed out the newspaper noting that the fortune of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Oil Company Yukos, amounted to 3.7 billion US dollars whereas that of Roman Abramovich amounted at that time to only 3 billion US dollars.
The authors didn’t forget to mention the well-known formula of consensus between the authorities and the oligarchs which ran like this: the business with its shady projects doesn’t tamper with politics, but deals with its own business matters.
And in 2002 it seemed that everybody, sort of, understood everything, including such themes as taxes and explicit hints to return back money which had been funneled to offshore companies and foreign banks. But in Yukos, it was decided that "America was with them" and it meant that it was possible to play a double game. This is, at least, corroborated by the documents on how Khodorkovsky had been preparing “his candidates” for deputies during the elections of the year 2003, with whom it had been “invisibly” dealt as early as in the fall of 2002 with the final purpose – with the help of corruption to change the constitutional order in Russia, because the moneybag Khodorkovsky “saw the future that way”. As the result, on account of one perpetrator of the convention, in a year already the whole guild of the “equidistant oligarchs” went bonkers.
In 2002, "Open Russia" ordered the Foundation for the development of a parliamentary system to work out changes and amendments to the Federal constitutional law “On Government of the Russian Federation”.
The key phrase: “The President presents to the State Duma a nominee to the post of the head of Government from the list of the persons proposed by a fraction or by a coalition of fractions (deputy groups) disposing of the majority of voices…” See also MBKh-files: Corruption coup. Secret files of the ‘Open Russia”. Mikhail Khodorkovsky prepared the seizure of power in 2004. Having put on the financial needle of Yukos deputies and several civil servants, Mikhail Khodorkovsky indented in his own way to dispose of Russia”.
“Fits of unpleasant premonitions”
On this day, 19 years ago, on August 13, 2003, the newspaper “The Financial Times” in its very headline caught the mood that reigned at that time in the Russian business community. “The Yukos affair makes the Russian oligarchs fidget in their chairs".
‘Some Russian businessmen are still preparing themselves for holidays, but others leave only for a short period of time being nervous because of the investigation against Yukos which started in July. This affair induced in the business community fits of unpleasant premonitions…” points out the reporter Andrew Jack. He has already shared this observation that struck him – the oligarchs do not hustle to help Khodorkovsky.
“The most striking thing in the latest scandal is a weak reaction from the part of other big companies. When in 2002 the media tycoon Vladimir Gusinsky was arrested, and a year later the managers of the petrochemical group "Sibur" were placed under detention, leading companies at once made public their statements condemning these actions. Khodorkovsky didn't receive such support", stressed the astonished author of the story.
"To a degree, it can be explained by the spirit of competitiveness and even the envy of Yukos success which in the last three years has raised its status and market capitalization. But many businessmen think that Khodorkovsky too explicitly demonstrates his political ambitions”, noted the reporter of “The Financial Times” and reminded his readers that “during our recent interview in the Moscow office of Yukos Khodorkovsky was resentful and nervous, but seemed ready to resist, at that”.
(See also: Financial Times: 'Yukos secretly provides support for the Communist Party)
However, one of the interlocutors of the newspaper was very specific in his assessment of the situation: “He broke the agreement with the president" bearing in mind the tacit accord of the year 2000 under which the Kremlin does not reconsider the results of the privatization of the 1990s, and the businessmen remain outside politics”.
Eventually, all members of the guild promptly rushed to clean their back taxes, to raise the quality of financial and other records, and some, in fact, even started to think about transferring their assets to the Russian jurisdiction. Indeed, to become “transparent”, it’s not enough to report about that in American newspapers and to draw a nice graph of the "dynamic development". Something else must be done, and in the real-life, at that. Al least, to pay taxes”, points out the website Prigovor.ru
